Alliance PC Merger Discussion

Greg · October 7, 2003

Sorry folks, my fault. I merged a new thread with an old thread and ended up with the wrong thread title.

Everything should be fine now, as I've renamed the thread to something alittle more descriptive. Sorry for any confusion. If there are any problems, just send them my way.

Thanks

Greg

Pellaken · October 7, 2003

ah yes, merging threads. never got that one down :blink:

splitting threads is fun tho! I did that 3 times. then I was removed as Mod... meh

anyways, back on topic:

the question is who will ask the first question in question period tomarrow?

Mr. Chater · October 7, 2003

hmmm, i'm a little confused on this thread thing

sir_springer · October 8, 2003

Newsworld has reported that 8 hours of talks broke without an agreement. Big sticking point is the leadership process.

If MacKay had ounce of gonads, he'd do the right thing and throw himself on his sword by ceding the leadership of the new party to Harper and foregoing a leadership vote. He could then become Deputy Leader, and the party could save scads of valuable time and money in getting on with the task at hand: Kicking Martin's ass.

Why are PCs such incessantly pigheaded idiots?

MacKay could be a hero...and instead he's going to wind up roadkill in Canadian political history.

Stupid ass!

:angry:

Lost in Manitoba · October 8, 2003

Pigheaded Idiots, hmmm? Would that be like a person who would tolerate no leader other than Harper, no way no how?

westcoast99 · October 8, 2003

What needs to be addressed, is how will the leader be selected? A compromise needs to be worked out, and fast.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

Neal.F. · October 8, 2003

My thinking is, that more often than not parties in canada are closely identified with their leader. My fear is that if both Messrs. Harper and MacKay don't fall on their swords, public perception of the whole thing would be that nothing has really changed, and the poll numbers would be in the mid- 20's at best. That would be the result if it was perceived as a takeover.

If, however, there's what appears to mbe a fair deal, followed by a good leadership contest , then the Ipsos numbers of last week could bear out (32%) While the Lieberals still weighed in at 51%, the handwriting was on the wall, and the Libs tried to spin it away (Martin would overwhelm even a merged party) . Lets not forget that this poll reflects where things would stand, even without the Conservatives nominating a leader. Now ask yourself what happens with a 10% swing?

Ladies and gentlemen, we'd have a real contest on our hands. Conservatives, it's time to get it right.

Pellaken · October 8, 2003

I have an idea for a compromise that might work

but how the hell am I to get it to the people that need it?

theWatcher · October 8, 2003

Usually you give the party leader at least one election before you sack them. This would be the unique event of sacking TWO leaders before they faced an election.

I am not so sure that Mr Harris is the answer. Didn't he quit on Ontario half way through a mandate? Don't a lot of people in Ontario despise him?

Does he leave any baggage behind that could haunt him later ( court cases, scandals, etc) ...

My potential list is very short.

Stephen Harper

Lewis MacKenzie

Peter Mackay

Bernard Lord

Mr. Chater · October 8, 2003

the real battle is between Harris and Harper. Thats all, we'll see hopefully soon who the future of our country shall rest upon.

westcoast99 · October 8, 2003

The only stumbling block, as pointed out by both Peter MacKay, and Stephen Harper today, is the leadership issue, and both sounded very optimistic (even MacKay, surprisingly) that it could be worked out, and that a merger proposal could come very soon.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

theWatcher · October 8, 2003

I really think this is it. We may very well be in the last few days of unopposed Liberal government.

Hmmmmm, wanna bet? :blink:

dnsfurlan · October 8, 2003

This is an interesting report I picked up on the internet:

Tory-Alliance merger talks in limbo: Insiders

An interesting couple of nuggets:

1) It APPEARS as though its the conservatives who are not compromising on the issue of equality of all ridings. I know the Alliance has already proposed some kind of weighted system, which is a compromise from them. The PCs still seem to be stuck on their original position. At least it appears that way.

Springer might be interested in this twist:

2) Harper would step aside and allow Mackay to run for the leadership.

This one does not make sense to me whatsoever. But Mike Duffy reported it. I wish he would have interpreted it as well.

Neal.F. · October 8, 2003

I don't think Harper really wants it anyway.... my hunch is that he really wants King Ralphie's job when it becomes available....

He can afford to be gracious as everybody knows that MacKay has a snowball's chance in hell.

sir_springer · October 9, 2003

These are the kind of asses the CA with which the CA has to deal. :angry:

This is supposed to be a "negotiation"??? Negotiation involves "compromise". The CA has compromised.

The PCs have their heads stuck so far up their own arses, if we wait a little while longer, they'll all suphocate to death and then we can get on with the job.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merger talks cool over 'philosophical differences'

Canadian Press

Ottawa — Merger talks between the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives have been stalled for at least two weeks over what one negotiator said Wednesday were “philosophical differences.”

Casual observers might think that sounds like an insurmountable roadblock to uniting Canada's two right-of-centre federal political parties.

Not so, said the respective party leaders as the on-again, off-again negotiations hit their latest impasse.

“We have a very small gap on paper in terms of what we haven't agreed on,” Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said after meeting with his caucus Wednesday.

“There's a gap on resolving the leadership issue. I think it's fairly clear... Will they sit down and come to a middle-ground position or will they simply refuse to compromise?”

Moments later, Tory Leader Peter MacKay addressed that same leadership procedure.

“This is something that we can't compromise,” he said.

So that's the end of it?

“I'm prepared to meet with Mr. Harper,” Mr. MacKay said, noting he'd never slam the door on such an important political initiative.

Mr. Harper flew to Toronto later Wednesday to talk with the “facilitator” of the negotiations between three Conservative and three Alliance emissaries. It was the first time such an individual had been mentioned and his role is unclear.

Mr. MacKay was also in the Toronto area Wednesday for a fundraiser but his staff said there were no plans for a similar debriefing, nor did he plan to meet with Mr. Harper.

What's it all mean? Suffice it to say: exit strategy.

Alliance MPs emerged from Wednesday's caucus meeting carrying glossy, Alliance-brand election readiness books.

Conservative MPs have been saying for a week that the talks are dead.

A seven-hour meeting Tuesday between the party emissaries was their last-ditch effort to agree on a means of selecting the leader for a new merged entity called the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

For all the public posturing over the last three weeks, it's the same issue that has killed the negotiations repeatedly.

In a nutshell, the deal breaker pits Tory brokerage politics against the Alliance philosophy of grassroots populism.

The Tories want a leader chosen using a system that would give absolute equality to every riding association in the country, big or tiny.

The Alliance wants the leader chosen in a direct vote by every registered party member.

The latest talks revolved around a nominal compromise that would have used the riding system but would have given far more weight to ridings with large party memberships.

Why should a riding in Gaspé with 15 party card-holders have the same weight in choosing a leader as a riding in Calgary with 2,500 members, the Alliance asks.

How can a truly national party allow its leader to be chosen without equal input from all provinces and regions, counter the Tories.

“It's a philosophical difference at this stage,” said Loyola Hearn, the Tory House leader and a member of the negotiating team.

“We cannot entrench a regional process at the federal level...That's undeniable,” said MacKay.

Goldie · October 9, 2003

The conservative Party is a done deal. Will it make an influance? well, it already has . Polical reform, marginal tax cuts. If they can hit Paul Martin on the corporate welfare and continued cronyism as well as the conflicts of interest they should do well. From the little guy to the big time Ceo should help the conservatives. Martin is currently cleaning house by exposing the abuses under Cretien. This could backfire if played well buy the new party. I honestly believe the conservatives have agreed and are hammering out the details as certain toreis ponder there future as a liberal back benchers (bye, bye)

So the base of Alberta is back to a solid 60% or there abouts. If they get the right leader Ontario needs to oppose the provincial Liberls, hello many conservatives.

Yes things are looking well for the consevative movement in Canada and hell, Paul Martin is right of most of the tories so it is a win win situation so fret not brethren.

Mr. Chater · October 9, 2003

and the plane crashes...

well, who knows whats going to happen. It sounded great at the beginning of Augest, having them merge. And now...well its not doing too well.

westcoast99 · October 9, 2003

What do you mean, Mr. Chater? Seems to be doing better than ever. The problem is conflicting news reports.

Take a look at this one from CTV:

MacKay and Harper hold direct talks on merger

CTV.ca News Staff

Efforts to reinvigorate merger talks between the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives have been stumbling recently. But CTV News has learned the two party leaders met late Wednesday night at a Toronto hotel.

It's the first face-to-face meeting between the two leaders, after weeks of negotiations between party emissaries.

Earlier in the day, Conservative Leader Peter MacKay was still holding out hope that Canada's political right will unite.

"I do believe there has been a great deal of progress that has got us to this point and I'm not prepared to unilaterally slam any doors."

Although reports have suggested the two parties are divided by basic "philosophical differences," both MacKay and Harper denied that negotiations have reached an impasse.

Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said the differences are minor. "We have a very small gap on paper in terms of what we haven't agreed on," Harper told reporters in Ottawa.

Later in the day, both leaders flew from Ottawa to Toronto on the same plane. Harper was on his way to Winnipeg for Israel Asper's funeral Thursday, and MacKay attended a fundraising event in Toronto earlier in the evening.

Later, they met at a hotel by the Toronto airport.

The issue of choosing a leader for a new, merged right-of-centre party is still unsolved, despite weeks of talks.

The Tories favour choosing a leader using a system that would give absolute equality to every riding association in the country. The Alliance wants the leader chosen in a direct vote by every registered party member.

When it's boiled down, the problem pits traditional Tory brokerage politics against the Alliance's founding principle of grassroots populism.

Neal.F. · October 9, 2003

Goldie is right. It's a done deal, or they're both dead meat.

It really is that simple, and the Liberal media sneering spin just confirms the fact that the Lieberals are trembling in their boots. A 220-250 seat majority is now looking like a minority or at best a bare majority.

And if the Martin strategy of exposing the crouton corruption backfires as it well might, since these very same MPs were part & parcel of the government of the last 10 years, and the right Conservative leader is chosen, there remains even the slight possibility of a Conservative victory, though it will likely be a minority, since Quebec's 75 seats are destined to go massively Liberal.

As for the REd Tories, Jolly Joe the Grand marshall is retiring anyway, and Borotsik, Brison and Bachand can either get with the program, or cross the floor....

Pellaken · October 9, 2003

if the talks fail, people will hold both parties responsible. plus, momentum will have been lost, and de-momentum will rule the day. The Alliance specifically is in deep doo-doo. Especially in the "soft" west, BC and Manitoba. In Saskatchewan, there were so many ridings the CA barly took, that even a 1% point difference nationally could have swayed 4 ridings. With the Liberal-Gerrymand.... er.... Non-Partisan re-drawing of the ridings in alberta, the Libs could take 4 seats from the edmonton area, or even 6, or more, just from a slight increase in pop vote. While The Alliance will take at least 20 seats from Alberta, and hence retain party status, they may take less then 20 seats in the rest of Canada.

The PC Party on the other hand, is riding high in the polls. They may lose out in the west due to the argument over leadership, but they will win in places like Quebec, and the East, which has, on average, more MP's per capita then the rest of Canada. The PC's are also ahead of the Alliance in Ontario. Does that mean the PC's are going to sweep Ontario? Far from it. Also, the 2 parties, togethor, are at about 8% in the polls in Quebec, but if the 2 parties were to unite, the party would be at near 30% in the polls in Quebec. not enough to take any extra seats, but that alone will bump their national polling numbers up, and people like voting for parties with high polling numbers.

Alone the Alliance can take about 35 seats, and the PC's about 15. The NDP will almost certainly take 40 seats, as the liberals move farther to the right.

The 2 parties CAN unite AFTER the election, and end up with 50 seats... or they can unite NOW, and take 75-90 seats.

up to them

Pellaken · October 9, 2003

if the talks fail, people will hold both parties responsible. plus, momentum will have been lost, and de-momentum will rule the day. The Alliance specifically is in deep doo-doo. Especially in the "soft" west, BC and Manitoba. In Saskatchewan, there were so many ridings the CA barly took, that even a 1% point difference nationally could have swayed 4 ridings. With the Liberal-Gerrymand.... er.... Non-Partisan re-drawing of the ridings in alberta, the Libs could take 4 seats from the edmonton area, or even 6, or more, just from a slight increase in pop vote. While The Alliance will take at least 20 seats from Alberta, and hence retain party status, they may take less then 20 seats in the rest of Canada.

The PC Party on the other hand, is riding high in the polls. They may lose out in the west due to the argument over leadership, but they will win in places like Quebec, and the East, which has, on average, more MP's per capita then the rest of Canada. The PC's are also ahead of the Alliance in Ontario. Does that mean the PC's are going to sweep Ontario? Far from it. Also, the 2 parties, togethor, are at about 8% in the polls in Quebec, but if the 2 parties were to unite, the party would be at near 30% in the polls in Quebec. not enough to take any extra seats, but that alone will bump their national polling numbers up, and people like voting for parties with high polling numbers.

Alone the Alliance can take about 35 seats, and the PC's about 15. The NDP will almost certainly take 40 seats, as the liberals move farther to the right.

The 2 parties CAN unite AFTER the election, and end up with 50 seats... or they can unite NOW, and take 75-90 seats.

up to them

westcoast99 · October 9, 2003

If they unite now, they can and will win over 100 seats and possibly take government.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

westcoast99 · October 9, 2003

Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper met on Wednesday night in Toronto, and want to meet with eachother again.

MacKay and Harper to meet at least once more

CTV.ca News Staff

The leaders of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives held direct merger talks late Wednesday night at a Toronto hotel, and have agreed to talk again in a day or two.

After weeks of off-again, on-again negotiations between party emissaries, Alliance Leader Stephen Harper and Tory Leader Peter MacKay met Wednesday night a Toronto hotel in the first face-to-face talks.

The two shared an afternoon flight from Ottawa to Toronto. However, that's not when they spoke. That came later when they met at a hotel by the Toronto airport. A report in The Globe and Mail suggests they met for about two hours.

"Peter and I did have a conversation and we agreed that we would continue that conversation in a day or two," Harper told The Globe.

Harper was on his way to Winnipeg for Israel Asper's funeral Thursday, and MacKay attended a fundraising event in Toronto earlier in the evening.

Before heading to the fundraiser, MacKay told The Globe an agreement between the two was possible. "We're close," he said. "I do feel obliged to at least speak to Mr. Harper."

That's in contrast to comments made by Loyola Hearn, the Tory House leader and a member of the negotiating team. "It's a philosophical difference at this stage."

The philosophical issue holding up an agreement for a new, merged right-of-centre party is how to choose a leader.

A day-long meeting with Alliance and Tory representatives reached an impasse on Tuesday over just that issue. Both parties agreed it is now time for Harper and MacKay to speak directly.

"At the end of the day, the whole issue is leadership selection," Alliance spokesman Jim Armour told The Canadian Press.

The Tories favour choosing a leader using a system that would give absolute equality to every riding association in the country. The Alliance wants the leader chosen in a direct vote by every registered party member.

When it's boiled down, the problem pits traditional Tory brokerage politics against the Alliance's founding principle of grassroots populism.

Despite some challenges, Harper told reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday the differences are minor. "We have a very small gap on paper in terms of what we haven't agreed on."

MacKay is also still holding out hope that Canada's political right will unite. "I do believe there has been a great deal of progress that has got us to this point and I'm not prepared to unilaterally slam any doors."

With reports from The Canadian Press

Mr. Chater · October 9, 2003

Pell, I've got to question some of your info.
First of all, if they unite now, they can and will win over 100 seats and possibly take government.

Second of all, the NDP will not take 40 seats. It's impossible. Where are they going to get these seats? In ridings where they got 1% of the vote last time? Not likely.

Third of all, as much as I wish you were right, I havn't seen any evidence that a United right would put the party at 30% in Québec. They have a lot to do there, but could win a few seats.

i must question you.

What makes you think the right would easily get 100 seats or more? I think your wrong. I think that both parties are acting like children and are making the right wing look bad while Paul Martin and Jean Cretien are on their @$$ laughing. People who ARE right, but not even want to vote for the Right parties because of such stupidity. I'm not saying this because of what i think. I'm saying this because of what i know, i know many professors who have said what i am saying to you, and other people.

Mr. Chater · October 9, 2003

we all knew it is the problem with the leader and who/how we will do this. Also, for those Harper people out there, i'm not saying i'm against it. But i have talked to many professors and public people and they have said that they would want either leaders as head of the new right wing. They think it is time for a new face, a strong man to obtain the votes Mulrooney once had. They say, only with a new face, may they listen and actually vote for them as they don't want to at the moment sense they're both acting like baby's.